We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

Railroads.

Industrial Revolution was so massive change, that nations which adopted it had devastating advantage over those who didn't and were basically capable of doing whatever they wanted, regardlessly of numerical advantage of their pre-industrial foes.

Click to expand...

I had hoped that Rise & Fall would address the game's late-game doldrums, but perhaps they're saving stuff for a full-blown expansion that will, among many other things, introduce railroads. The whole game should really change course with the Industrial Era. Civs that fall behind would be in trouble, even if they were "winning" up to that point, but we can see in the real-world that some civs were capable of catching up. The Ottomans didn't, and sank, but Japan and later China roared back. It would add some much-needed dynamism to the late game, which is a drum I've been banging since about 3 weeks after launch. I don't know why the game is so timid, but maybe the devs are saving their fastball for a big, late-game DLC.

Pedantic Oxonians would point out that Oxford University was "founded" c 1096, solidly in the middle ages; though I submit the royal charter in 1248 might start to get close to the 1300 date some use to define the start of the Renaissance Apologies for the off topic, not looking to start a debate on eras, I agree with the spirit of your posts

Well, I do, for one, because of the following developments between 1200 and 1350:
Founding of Cambridge in England and the Sorbonne in France
Hanseatic League founded
Battle of the Spurs, the first complete defeat of knights by Pikemen, followed by
Battle of Bannockburn and Battle of Morgarten, when Scots and Swiss pikemen also slaughtered knights.
Pot-de-Fer, first gunpowder cannon in Europe described and pictured by contemporaries, followed immediately by:
first known use of small cannons on board a ship
mechanical escapement clock invented and built.

The founding of Universities, international commercial organizations, rise of gunpowder and demise of knights, beginnings of mechanical engineering in clockwork - I regard all these as Non-Medieval developments. The Renaissance did not spring Full Flowered into being in Italy in the 15th century, it only accelerated developments already in progress from a century or more earlier.

Put bluntly, the entire Era system in Civ is a completely artificial mechanism: even in sources that try to define 'Classical', 'Medieval', 'Renaissance' or 'Industrial' Eras, you'd be hard put to find any agreement on when any of them began or ended, or whether they are even applicable terms to any history outside of Europe.

I would point out that the mechanical engineering that built clocks was an adaptation of the mechanical engineering that was being used in wind and water mills to power bellows and looms. There is a reason why factories where cloth was spun and iron was purified were called mills.

The dark and middle ages weren't dark there were plenty of very important inventions made during that time they just tended to be extremely practical, the trailing harness for instance, and not very grandiose.

Edit: Many cultures had a medieval period just that historians are beginning to see a medieval period as not an era of fixed history but a process and a period where states reform after collapse into smaller mini and micro-states after a reduction in population due to various events. Long lasting cultures can go through several medieval periods like China or Egypt.

note:
one of the problems with determining transit times with era is that in Civilisation the turn to year ratio gets smaller as you progress though eras.
so if we take ancient ear travel of a couple of squares every 100 years to the modern era travel of a couple of squares in half a year you have already got large increase in travel time just for progressing though eras.

I've tried rationalising the speeds units go in this way but it still makes no rational sense other then from a gameplay aspect of course which makes complete sense.

note:
one of the problems with determining transit times with era is that in Civilisation the turn to year ratio gets smaller as you progress though eras.
so if we take ancient ear travel of a couple of squares every 100 years to the modern era travel of a couple of squares in half a year you have already got large increase in travel time just for progressing though eras.

I've tried rationalising the speeds units go in this way but it still makes no rational sense other then from a gameplay aspect of course which makes complete sense.

Click to expand...

Slan has a really good point here...

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
- Sir Winston Churchill

Well, I do, for one, because of the following developments between 1200 and 1350:
Founding of Cambridge in England and the Sorbonne in France
Hanseatic League founded
Battle of the Spurs, the first complete defeat of knights by Pikemen, followed by
Battle of Bannockburn and Battle of Morgarten, when Scots and Swiss pikemen also slaughtered knights.
Pot-de-Fer, first gunpowder cannon in Europe described and pictured by contemporaries, followed immediately by:
first known use of small cannons on board a ship
mechanical escapement clock invented and built.

The founding of Universities, international commercial organizations, rise of gunpowder and demise of knights, beginnings of mechanical engineering in clockwork - I regard all these as Non-Medieval developments. The Renaissance did not spring Full Flowered into being in Italy in the 15th century, it only accelerated developments already in progress from a century or more earlier.

Put bluntly, the entire Era system in Civ is a completely artificial mechanism: even in sources that try to define 'Classical', 'Medieval', 'Renaissance' or 'Industrial' Eras, you'd be hard put to find any agreement on when any of them began or ended, or whether they are even applicable terms to any history outside of Europe.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your points; but I still see that as a good distinction point for a distinct late medieval era.

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
- Sir Winston Churchill

note:
one of the problems with determining transit times with era is that in Civilisation the turn to year ratio gets smaller as you progress though eras.
so if we take ancient ear travel of a couple of squares every 100 years to the modern era travel of a couple of squares in half a year you have already got large increase in travel time just for progressing though eras.

I've tried rationalising the speeds units go in this way but it still makes no rational sense other then from a gameplay aspect of course which makes complete sense.

Click to expand...

Very good point in that the Relative travel time increases, but the Game Travel Time is still ludicrous when compared to Actual (historical) travel times: in Game Terms, Magellan in the Renaissance Era circumnavigated the entire planet in less than One Turn...

More importantly, the advent of railroads increased land travel times by several orders of magnitude. A conestoga wagon carrying 3 - 5 tons took 3 - 5 months, or 90 - 150 days to go from Saint Louis/Independance, Missouri across the west to California in 1850. In 1870, after the completion of a railroad, the same trip took 5 - 6 days, an increase of 2000 - 3000%. As important, a single train could carry, even in 1870, up to 1500 tons at a time for 100 - 200 miles a day, which was, quite simply, impossible for any human contrivance prior to the railroad. These changes in travel times and transport of goods had an almost unimaginable impact on everything humans did.
Add in the fact that railroads also required massive increases in capitalization financing to build, and new organizational/bureaucratic methods to run, and made possible the siting of factories almost anywhere there was labor rather than tying them to raw materials sources, and there are a host of profound changes to the way cities and nations developed that the game simply ignores by leaving railroads out.

I appreciate your points; but I still see that as a good distinction point for a distinct late medieval era.

Click to expand...

You are by no means alone: there are a number of histories and historians that refer to a High Middle Ages starting around the 13th century and distinguished from the 'earlier' Medieval period up to that point.
My point is that the 'renaissance' or Rebirth of Classical knowledge pre-dates the classic dating of the Fall of Constantinople in the 15th century: classical knowledge had been filtering into Europe all through the Medieval period, either from preservation or by translation from Cordoba in Spain - western Europeans were studying there as early as the 11th and 12th centuries, and Bengtssen pointed out almost 80 years ago that Scandinavians (who could read Latin, anyway) were avidly reading Ovid in 1000 AD (Ovid's poem "Art of Love' was considered porngraphic, hence the avidity!)

I would rather refer to the 'classic' Renaissance Era of the 15th - 16th centuries as not a Rebirth but a Take Off, when the accumulated knowledge spilled out of occasional dirty books and purely academic study into Mainstream thought and action. This 'Explosion' of knowledge was not so much a 'rebirth' of classical thought as the mass distribution of knowledge brought about by the moveable-type printing press starting in the 15th century: within a generation after Gutenburg's biblical Best Seller, there were presses all over Europe, and the bulk of the books published were not bibles, but non-fiction "how to" manuals on everything from agriculture to metallurgy. Another Order of Magnitude change in the way people did things and the possibilities they could imagine, that had never been seen before in human history.

Even with the Froggy Trade and Road system in Civ VI, they can be included: the limitations on building railroads were that they needed lots and lots of iron worked into equipment and tracks, and lots and lots of Gold - in Game Terms, they were the most expensive Improvements in history up to that time (and still are: modern High Speed railroads cost more per kilometer to build than even high-speed highways).
So, you can convert your Classical Road into an Industrial Era Railroad. It takes a Military Engineer, but he expends no 'Charges'. Instead, he moves over the route and for every tile converted, it costs X Gold (amount will vary depending on whether the tile is plans, hills, marsh, floodplain, etc) AND you must have access to 2 Iron Resources to build any railroad at all.

Click to expand...

In civ 5, units consumed resources while they existed. In Civ 6, you merely have to have the resources while the unit is being built or upgraded. I've always thought a nice middle ground would be that the resources are consumed while the unit is being built. In this context, maybe you only need 1 iron to build a railroad, but that iron resource is consumed for a single turn when you select the option to build it. If you wanted multiple engineers building railroads across different parts of your empire simultaneously, you'd need multiple copies of iron. I always thought it would be nice to bring back an aspect of having a reason to have multiple strategic resources.

In civ 5, units consumed resources while they existed. In Civ 6, you merely have to have the resources while the unit is being built or upgraded. I've always thought a nice middle ground would be that the resources are consumed while the unit is being built. In this context, maybe you only need 1 iron to build a railroad, but that iron resource is consumed for a single turn when you select the option to build it. If you wanted multiple engineers building railroads across different parts of your empire simultaneously, you'd need multiple copies of iron. I always thought it would be nice to bring back an aspect of having a reason to have multiple strategic resources.

Click to expand...

It's a little off from the Thread OP, but my Ideal Resource System would divide all 'Resources' into Ordinary and Industrial Quantities. Almost all early 'Luxury' or 'Strategic' Resources would be Ordinary: the quantities required to make a difference are relatively small. 100 pounds of Spices would make you rich, and therefore be worth trading, less than 200 tons of Iron would equip an entire Roman Imperial Legion with weapons and armor, and it's only needed in 50 pound 'blocks' (amount required for one Heavy Infantryman).
That means, all the Ordinary Resources can be traded by virtually any route: back pack, Llama-back, cart or dug-out canoe, and so would be in the Trade System from the start.
Industrial Quantity Resources are those required in quantities too great for 'ordinary' land transport: Food, from the start, because it takes 1000s of tons of the stuff to feed the 1000s of people in a city for more than a day at a time. Most of these quantities become important - you guessed it - in the Industrial Era, when instead of 200 tons of Iron for one Legion, it takes that amount for 3 kilometers of single-track, low-capacity railroad (rails, spikes, the amount does not include what is additionally required for the locomotives and cars to use the railroad).
A single Ironclad would require 1000 - 3000 tons of Iron, and now we're talking about 100+ ton sheets and structural members, which will NOT fit on a Llama or any other beast of burden or wheeled cross country vehicle of the time.

So, the concept is, early Resources appear on the map, and you can trade Ivory, Spices, Dyes, Copper, Gold, Iron in the quantities needed for swordsmen or happy civilians. To trade Food, you need to be able to trace the Trade Route by water only (rivers, coast) because nothing else available will handle the quantities required to make a difference at the game's scale and timescale. (This, coincidentally, would automatically increase the usefulness of Coastal Cities, which become much easier to 'feed')

About the time you reach the late Renaissance - early Industrial Era, 'tags' start to appear (based on separate Technologies like Deep Mining) indicating that some of your Natural Resource deposits are Huge - 1000s of tons instead of 100s, and accessible in huge quantities (close enough to the surface).
So, basically, you might have enough iron to equip all the Swordsmen or Knights you want, but not enough for your first railroad or Ironclad, and definitely not enough for Battleships, Tanks, or Modern Era skyscrapers, bridges, and other Infrastructure.
The Good News is, with advancing Technology, resources previously undiscovered or not shown because there was no feasible way to access them would become visible on the map for exploit.

Or you could end up like Rome/Italy, with plenty of iron for Legions in the Classical Era, but not enough Iron or Coal in Industrial Quantities to support the needs of the Modern Era (see: Italy in World War Two, a depressing field of study!).

And, to return to the Point of the Thread, Railroads would require both Gold and Iron in Industrial Quantities, but the Gold is abstract, and can be provided by new Economic Measures: the Corporation, the International Stock and Bond Exchange, etc.

Thanks god, the game is not some kind of history sim, so having something "historically important" is not enough reason to include this in game.

Surely, I'd like to see railroads in the game (and my long-time wish, Armored Train unit), but it needs some really solid gameplay reason to exist:
1. Building roads and railroads is micromanagement. Civ avoided it in pretty beautiful way. If we want railroads to live alongside regular roads, we have options:
- Use similar mechanics with unit other than Trader. It would work, but the railroads drawn this way will be on top of regular roads. And this additional unit needs some gameplay role itself.
- Use some bulk building command (railroad to point), for example engineer could build railroad up to 5 tiles in length using 1 charge. That's still micromanagement, but less than building each tile.
- Have Railroad Station improvement, which automatically connects to cities and railroad stations within, for example, 3 tiles.
2. Railroads for moving units only is barely worth it. Moving units through the empires late game is not that huge issue. Some bonuses for trade routes coming through railroads are good, but this also raises the question of where the railroads are built. I'd say picking exact tiles for railroads wouldn't work here (what if only part of the road between cities is a railroad?).

Overall something like this could be part of expansion with corporations, but so far it looks like too big change for too small gameplay gain.

Click to expand...

The trade road system is affecting gameplay in a big way.

First, you can not choose if wether a caravan route can enter your territory, accept the gift, and trade what. You get a road that have military implications in your territory for the totality of the 4000 years.

Second. Hyperloop. You want to move your units FAST. Resources: Railroad technology need IRON, but you can't have INFINITE AMOUNT of Iron. That is gameplay.
You rob poor steppa people of all their Iron and build a massive Red Army. Your peaceful CIV with no resources mean NO railroads, unless trading amount of resources when used is permanent.
Iron ores has actual tonnage output capacity, they work like districts. It would be a HUGE IMPROVEMENT for gameplay.

Third. Military. Railroad cut through Africa will bring first class HEAVY resources *like Crude Oil, etc to coastlines, - Bring troops in and away from the conflict zone without cluttering the borders with replacement units.
Trade must be revamped.

The argument moving in late game is not an issue is invalid, if you think military tactics is very different from Alpha Go then ok, but to me this supe uber units that bevels out hills and Desert, not mentioning snow. without consequences its not fun. The Big wall of China was a BIG ROAD FORTIFIED SYSTEM, not just a wall. That has big consequences in gameplay.

(China wall plus three movement for all units. Can't be pillaged. Has a Resistance as city walls)
(Same Hadrian wall)

Railroads should be built from specialized builders, or engineer is a very good idea, but they must suffer MIASMA as all other workers.
Too Harsh winter= Sudden death. Dynamic weather required.

It's a little off from the Thread OP, but my Ideal Resource System would divide all 'Resources' into Ordinary and Industrial Quantities. Almost all early 'Luxury' or

Or you could end up like Rome/Italy, with plenty of iron for Legions in the Classical Era, but not enough Iron or Coal in Industrial Quantities to support the needs of the Modern Era (see: Italy in World War Two, a depressing field of study!).

.

Click to expand...

Quite true, the first railroads if I recall correctly cuts from Berlin to Constantinople, that was because Germany had God Iron technology and Industrial quantities of Coal. Italian tanks where so thin that could be punctured with a wood projectile!

Quite true, the first railroads if I recall correctly cuts from Berlin to Constantinople, that was because Germany had God Iron technology and Industrial quantities of Coal. Italian tanks where so thin that could be punctured with a wood projectile!

My idea: At Industrialization, at a new type of trader, the Train. Like a trade route, it moves between cities. Can only use land hexes. When first moving, only moves 1 hex (building the line), but once established, moves 5 hexes a turn. Gives both cities boosts (i.e.. production, food etc.), once line completed (not the route itself, just the initial laying of track), and like a trade route, establishes a Railway hub in cities.
Once the first route is completed, you may upgrade 1/2 your trade routes to trains. You must have coal and iron available to complete. Units in a city, can instant transport to another city with a railway hub.

I definitely agree that railroads is one of the most significant omissions in Civ VI. I just hope that if they do get added, they won't be a simple upgrade to roads. I'd rather see railroads be a separate type of infrastructure that works in conjunction with roads rather than replacing them. I'm imagining them operating like hubs, where you can only on-load and off-load from stations (in cities). So they'd operate kind of similarly to airlifts.

I'd also like to see railroads actually require and consume coal to use.

I definitely agree that railroads is one of the most significant omissions in Civ VI. I just hope that if they do get added, they won't be a simple upgrade to roads. I'd rather see railroads be a separate type of infrastructure that works in conjunction with roads rather than replacing them. I'm imagining them operating like hubs, where you can only on-load and off-load from stations (in cities). So they'd operate kind of similarly to airlifts.

I'd also like to see railroads actually require and consume coal to use.

Click to expand...

A lot of people seem to like the idea of making Railroads act as a Hub rather than as Roads do now.

Along those lines, why not do a little Revamp of the Districts?

Aqueducts make no sense as a District, since they are, in fact, linear constructions that deliver the water to other Districts (mainly the City Center, but See Below).
So instead, make Aqueducts an Improvement. They can go through any number of tiles, but must end at a City Center or Neighborhood with the other end, as now, on a Fresh Water Source like a lake or river or Mountain.. The Roman Bath would become a Building rather than a District, that could be added to Either a City Center OR a Neighborhood, giving them a nice Unique add-on with some flexibility.

In the District 'slot' now empty, let's add a Railroad District (like the Harbor or Aerodrome). Possible buildings would be Union Station (which could add Amenity and Gold, and later Gold and Culture), Freight Yard (adding Amenity and Gold or Production), and Container Terminal, which would add Gold, Production and, in synergy, add to the points from Harbor and Aerodrome Districts in the same city - if you have all three, it's going to be a mighty Production and Trade Hub.

When a Railroad District is completed, it automatically completes a Railroad to a City of your choice, following existing roads if there are any. That city, in turn, would get a Bonus to building another Railroad District. Without such a District, the city still gets some bonuses for having a Railroad connection, but not the serious bonuses from the District and all of its buildings.
Railroad Districts would get Adjacency Bonuses from neighboring City Center, Industrial District, Commercial Hub or Harbor. Nothing from a Holy Site unless your religion requires worshipping trains, which, in fact, could be argued is a realistic Pantheon Belief in certain countries (I'm looking at You, Trainspotters!)

Transport of units along a Railroad takes place without Movement Cost. The only cost is 1 Movement Point to detrain or entrain if that happens outside a Railroad District. In other words, between Railroad Districts transport is essentially instantaneous.

As for Railroads consuming Resources, the problem is which Resource? Building the Railroads, as we have discussed here, used primarily massive quantities of Iron/Steel and Money/Capital/Gold. Early railroad locomotives burned either wood or coal or oil (US railroads in the southwest and west like the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe used oil-fired steam locomotives from the late Industrial Era on) and later used diesel-electric locomotives or electric engines run from fixed power plants using everything from hydroelectric to coal, nuclear or oil-fired plants. I think instead of that, let's make the building of a Railroad District require, say, a Stock Exchange for each such District (but not necessarily in the same City) in addition to 'normal' Production Costs. That would reflect the massive Capital/Gold requirements associated with the building of the railroads and avoid bringing in a whole new 'consumption' mechanic for Resources.

Industrial Revolution in general was probably the most important change between 3000 BC and 2000 AD, in my opinion.

Before industrialism, regardless of what civ are you talking about and at what period, something like 80-90% of humanity was farmers, peasants, fishermen, hunters and gatherers. Vast majority was illiterate and not urbanised too.
Before industrialism, logistics was terrible, most of humans never travelled far, communication was terrible, supply was terrible, army movement was incomparably slower...
Industrial Revolution changed the way humanity works.
Industrial Revolution was so massive change, that nations which adopted it had devastating advantage over those who didn't and were basically capable of doing whatever they wanted, regardlessly of numerical advantage of their pre-industrial foes.

I fantasized about Civ game which turns IR into the major gamechanger, when once-powerful-empires may completely fall and small underdogs may dramatically rise, depending on each nation's capability to industrialize. Where once somebody researches IR it all turns into OOOOH MAAAN WE GOTTA CATCH UP OR WE GONNA DIE, an industrial race of manufacturing and efficiency.

It would make late game quite dynamic, too.

Click to expand...

I’ve made the suggestion before to include something to do with industrialisation. For eg in order to industrialise you need to meet certain conditions like: building coal mines, conquering a certain number of cities, having a certain amount of pop etc. Once you met these conditions, you industrialise which grants you massive but bonuses, such as: a reduction in or increase in production, the ability to annihilate earlier tech armies, build railroads etc. Other civs can industrialise by trading etc.

What this would mean is that some civs will be stuck in a pre industrial stage, but this is historical accurate as some civs were. It would also make the game more dynamic imho.

I’ve made the suggestion before to include something to do with industrialisation. For eg in order to industrialise you need to meet certain conditions like: building coal mines, conquering a certain number of cities, having a certain amount of pop etc. Once you met these conditions, you industrialise which grants you massive but bonuses, such as: a reduction in or increase in production, the ability to annihilate earlier tech armies, build railroads etc. Other civs can industrialise by trading etc.

What this would mean is that some civs will be stuck in a pre industrial stage, but this is historical accurate as some civs were. It would also make the game more dynamic imho.

Click to expand...

There should be a bonus to being the first civ to industrialize ie Britain but as more civs industrialize then each successive civ can do it easier. Like Japan industrializing in a couple decades than Britain or Europe totally industrializing over a century or so. Also resources like Iron should at that time become really ubiquitous. Iron and good quality iron are incredibly incredibly common. Much more so than copper and particularly zinc to make bronze.

There should be a bonus to being the first civ to industrialize ie Britain but as more civs industrialize then each successive civ can do it easier. Like Japan industrializing in a couple decades than Britain or Europe totally industrializing over a century or so. Also resources like Iron should at that time become really ubiquitous. Iron and good quality iron are incredibly incredibly common. Much more so than copper and particularly zinc to make bronze.

Click to expand...

The historical 'Bonus' to Industrializing was the ability to produce goods cheaply and in quantity so that your 'Gold' and 'Production' (in Civ VI terms) went off the charts. For an example of how that worked, England/Britain was the first Industrial Nation on earth, had the money to subsidize the army of Prussia in the Seven Year's War when industrialization was just starting, and to subsidize the armies of Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain and Portugal in the Napoleonic Wars, when the Industrialization of the British Isles was in full swing.

In game terms, the best way to show this, I think, would be to jack up dramatically the value of a Trade Route to or through any city wth a Factory, and to explicitly show some of the 'manufactured amenities' that brought in the Big Bucks: cheap cloth at the beginning of Industrialization, later the Personal Automobile and Personal Electronics. All of these required Factories, but could be sold to almost anybody and bring in substantial amounts of Gold.

There's a synergy to this, also: Say, if you have a city with direct access to Sheep (Wool) or Cotton or even Silk, then a Factory in that city's Industrial Zone can manufacture, say, 2 of Cheap Cloth for each source of raw materials (Resources) which can be traded abroad, AND increases Gold from the city to represent the Internal Trade in manufactured clothing within your Civ.

Access to Oil, Iron or Aluminum (or, perhaps, Oil and ether of the other two) plus a Factory would allow you to build Automobiles, which give you not only a new Trade Good and internal Gold, but also the Factory 'producing' Automobiles can also build Tanks or Modern Armor at a discount (Detroit Tank Arsenal, Kharkov Tractor Works, there are lots of examples)

We could have specialized Factories, like a Cloth Mill or a Auto Plant, but that makes the entire Industrial/Factory system as it is in the game now much more cluttered, and ignores the general rise of manufactured consumer and industrial goods that are also the product of Industrialization, which is why I think 'tying' the Factory to specific Resources allows the same 'specialization' without increasing the Footprint of Factories in the Build Queue or on the map.